Jump to content
sactowndog

Play-off Committee Jan Meeting

Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, StanfordAggie said:

Yeah others are reporting that the ACC is demanding no expansion past eight teams with six automatic qualifiers and two at-larges because they think that would force Notre Dame to join the conference as a full member. But I'm sure that the ACC has no real interest in Notre Dame and their true motive is to help the PAC screw over the MWC.

That makes sense.  The agreement reached is tailor made to prevent ND from ever having to join a conference.  And someone +++++ing explain to me why ND gets a seat at the table equivalent to entire conferences.  Will college football please and at long last get the balls to put them in their place.

  • Like 1
Link to post
Share on other sites
2 hours ago, RebelAlliance said:

That makes sense.  The agreement reached is tailor made to prevent ND from ever having to join a conference.  And someone +++++ing explain to me why ND gets a seat at the table equivalent to entire conferences.  Will college football please and at long last get the balls to put them in their place.

Notre Dame having a vote was in the MWC’s favor.   What I said earlier about the next vote was incorrect.   Regardless right now we are allied with the SEC, Big-12, Notre Dame, and the G5.   We are opposed by the Big, PAC-12 and ACC.  

Below is a quote from a pretty plugged in poster known as Frank the Tank 
 

In order to change the CFP early, before it expires in 2026, it is one conference, one vote, and any vote against is enough to veto any change in the CFP. So in effect, each of the 10 conferences, and Notre Dame, can nuke the early modification of the CFP. To change the CFP before 2026, a unanimous, 11-0 vote to do so is needed.

Regarding what happens once the CFP expires, all bets are off. At that point, IIRC, it is an open negotiation among all of these entities. So there isn't even a vote that anyone has to abide by. E.g., if seven conferences want a particular new format and three conferences disagree, the seven cannot force those three to adopt their format by a 7-3 vote. The three dissenters can simply refuse to participate in that playoff scheme.

But, the seven who do agree could go ahead with their scheme anyway, amongst themselves.

As for 5+1+6, it seems like there is quite a bit of opposition to that right now, from the SEC, Big 12 and at least some G5, all of whom have said they oppose autobids for the P5 conferences.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.


  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.




×
×
  • Create New...